James DiEugenio

The thing about the Clinton was how quickly they rejected the single payer solution. They took it off the table. It never really entered the debate.

Now I feel guilty. DId my review sink The irishman? (😀)

Its a scandal really. I mean the Clintons folded on this issue and brought us the HMO solution.

Anyone who uses Halpern should have his head examined. The guys who did the CIA Inspector General Report on the CIA Mafia plots decided he was a confabulator and so did not include him in the final report. Even though Halpern was Helms' guy and they both reported to Helms. The report, which said that neither Ike nor JFK was informed of the plots, and when RFK was briefed the CIA lied to him, was a disappointment to Helms. So he filed it away in a safe and allowed no copies. Knowing the truth, he then sent out Halpern to lie his head off about it. Nagell didn't call him Dirty Dick for nothing. BTW, anyone could see that the Kennedys were in the dark about this by using common sense. Why would RFK need to be briefed on the plots in the first place? Duh? Maybe because he didn't know about them? The CIA briefers reported that during their talk with RFK, the longer they went on the harder he was grinding his teeth. Bobby Kennedy then called in Helms, a meeting that DIrty DIck could not recall, and reamed him. I heard Kinzer spreading this disinfo at a conference I went to in Virginia a few years ago. When i got up to do my speech I had to correct the record. But alas, that is what the NY Times does to people.

OMG, David. Why bring up Zabriskie Point? Blow Up was a masterpiece. And that is not me saying it. It is Ingmar Bergman. Its so good that Coppola copied it by transposing it from sight to sound. And The Conversation, to me, is his best film and one of the finest films of the seventies. Those two films, respectively, are relevant to both the JFK case and Watergate. Even though I do not think, in either instance, that was the intent. Please don't get me started on how good American cinema used to be. That was what the Afterword to my last book was about.

Interesting story Robert. Thanks. I wonder why she left though? Did Trump offer he the State job?

Jimmy Dore nails it with this one.

I hate to tell you this Bob, but the same complaint about foreign money was filed with the FEC over the Obama campaign. You don't even want to get into the Bill Clinton campaign on that one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Who said Breo was a doctor? He is not

Then she has a good lawsuit for wrongful termination.

This is a really interesting story in all its implications. They forced Amy to recant, and then they fired the person who spirited the tape out. This is the kind of MSM we have. Always nice to be reminded of just how bad it is. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cbs-news-fires-staffer-who-leaked-abc-news-video-about-epstein-cover-up-report?fbclid=IwAR0bKOR4UoMuQ54O3H9rb_oPNMH9s4XG2tD0Y8peCLcrLVdr0Ts4untGCEU

Lawson was one of the most suspicious characters on the SS detail along with Sorrels.

RW: The detriment to the coup plotters (Deep State, Power Elite, etc.) arises in any number of forms, but at the highest level, blurs the distinctions and disagreements between "R"s and "D"s, which would then initiate a more critical look at the Deep State. In other words, as long as partisan and MSM enabled disagreements distract both "R"s and "D"s (liberal & conservative; left & right) few are actually looking for the real criminals. How could anyone not agree with this. This country probably has the worst media in the entire Western World.

Let me add, I said I would not comment on this thread anymore. I posted the above two comments as a favor to someone. I will not reply anymore. And I did not read the original posts either. Someone thought that they were factually wrong, which is nothing new with CV, and thought they should be corrected. He had a good source so I did him a favor.

What a bunch of crapola. What wound in the neck? That wound was moved five times overall: 1. Boswell and Burkley, SIbert O'Neill report, which matches the shirt and jacket 2. Warren Report final draft, moved it up about four inches 3. Jerry Ford, moves it up another inch and half into the base of the neck 4. Ramsey Clark Panel moves it back to where the WC had it before Ford changed it 5. HSCA moves it down more, to align with the autopsy photos Dennis Breo leaves out the fact he was one of the parties sued by Crenshaw for lying about him not being in the ER room in Dallas. It turned out that editor Lundberg hired a sports writer to write the articles about the JFK assassination! That is what Breo was before.

William: To blame Comey for how HRC lost an election in which she had every single possible advantage any candidate could have is so perverse as to be nonsense. Twice as much money, thousands more employees, the Access Hollywood tape, Obama and his wife campaigning for her. I mean give me a break. Take a look at the book Shattered. See how much space they devote to Comey. They point out that HRC ran a dumb campaign, would not listen to her husband's advice and should have fired Robbie Mook. Also, you leave out the fact that Podesta started blaming Russia before Comey's announcement. Uh, William, you are leaving out an important piece of evidence about Sater: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-associate-felix-sater-proved-invaluable-fbi-source-records-show-n1045896 The whole thing about Mueller's obstruction of justice is couched in such qualified terms that to claim it is the reason for his failure reveals that maybe you did not read it. Suffice it to say that three of the areas mentioned were Wikileaks, Trump Tower and Flynn. I mean please.

$4.6 Trillion in Additional Federal Deficits Upon taking office in January 2009, President Obama inherited a budget deficit that had soared from $161 billion in 2007 to a recession-slammed $1.186 trillion estimate for 2009. The January 2009 CBO baseline budget projection for 2009–19—which already incorporated the effects of the year-old recession in its projections—estimated that a strong economic recovery and the expiration of certain tax cuts would return the annual budget deficit to approximately $260 billion by 2012. In other words, the projections assumed that the high recessionary deficits would quickly fall back to earlier levels. Overall, CBO estimated that there would be $4.32 trillion in total budget deficits over the decade. That is not what happened. Figure 1 shows that, as Obama left office, the 2009–19 budget deficits were now estimated to total $8.93 trillion—more than double the initial projections. Annual budget deficits remained above $1 trillion through 2012, fell to $438 billion by 2015, and have since begun rising once again. While current deficits of 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) are not historically atypical, they are significantly higher than the default baseline when Obama took office. These deficits also exceeded the president’s own targets. A month after his inauguration, Obama pledged to “cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”4 Instead, the inherited $1.186 trillion was pushed up to $1.413 trillion by 2009

Russia actually made the deal happen. But this below is from Wiki During the G20 summit on 6 September, Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed the idea of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control.[32] On 9 September 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated in response to a question from a journalist that the air strikes could be averted if Syria turned over "every single bit" of its chemical weapons stockpiles within a week, but Syria "isn't about to do it and it can't be done".[33][32] State Department officials stressed that Kerry's statement and its one-week deadline were rhetorical in light of the unlikelihood of Syria turning over its chemical weapons.[34][35] Hours after Kerry's statement, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov announced that Russia had suggested to Syria that it relinquish its chemical weapons,[36] and Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moallem immediately welcomed the proposal,[37][36] and U.S.–Russian negotiations led to the 14 September 2013 "Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons", which called for the elimination of Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles by mid-2014.[1][2][3] Following the agreement, Syria acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention and agreed to apply that convention provisionally until its formal entry into force on 14 October 2013. On 21 September, Syria ostensibly provided a list of its chemical weapons to the OPCW, before the deadline set by the framework.[38]

Interesting piece by Jeff Morley: https://deepstateblog.org/2019/11/08/the-deep-state-isnt-a-conspiracy-its-a-political-faction/

OMG, KG really thinks Secret Agenda is the only book I have read on Watergate. In that issue of Probe, I recommended ten books on Nixon and Watergate, and I read them all. Hougan's book was not even the first to posit what had really happened. This was done in Fred Thompson's book, At that Point in Time. But it was also explored with the Lucien Nedzi report by the House Intelligence Committee after Nixon left office. Haldeman's The Ends of Power also outlines this kind of infiltration. Therefore, it was not like Hougan was out there on his own. He acknowledges his debts to prior sources in his book. But the point of his volume is that those voices had been drowned out in the orchestrated symphony of the MSM, led by the W Post, the Ervin Committee and Robert Redford's hit film. Plus, he had managed to attain out of the FBI research library certain documents that should have remained classified. I mean did anyone miss this article: https://kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord It actually made waves in the MSM.

William and Joe. One cannot argue with your above two posts, or in Joe's case, reposts, because they are not written to be replied too. They are written to express a pre existing attitude that reflects the priorities of the alleged liberal blogosphere. But man to somehow hold up Obama as a kind of model? After he allowed HRC to run wild with the likes of Libya and Honduras. (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2019-02-18/obamas-libya-debacle) And then Barack says that not going into Syria was supposed to be some kind of jewel in the crown for him? Please. When one stacks that up with the whole "Too Big to Fail" and let's not prosecute anyone over the crash and his: Well, you know, its not the same as 1932, so there is no basic restructuring needed, lets keep the criminals in charge on Wall Street and give them tons of money on top of that. Joe, excuse me, but I think that is as unjustifiable as giving him the Nobel Prize for just getting elected. As per William seeing no parallel with Watergate, well, if you don't read the book then I can see how you would think so. But in your post, I detect an attitude which says it would not make any difference anyway. The sting on George P, doesn't matter. The entrapment of Flynn, doesn't matter. Leak vs Hack, doesn't matter. The machinations taking place in the summer of 2016, way before Trump was in power, doesn't matter. Mueller's failure to come up with anything of substance for collusion, doesn't matter. There's those xxxxx farms and MDA anyway (which are common in criminal prosecutions). Hey and look at Roger Stone and Wikileaks. Stone wanted to get the HRC emails from Wikileaks. Which Wikileaks released to the public anyway. When you cannot prove the central thesis of what you were supposed to prove, but you insist on going after the likes of Randy Credico, then something is wrong someplace. I mean if going after Randy C, Jerome Corsi and Roger Stone is what Russia Gate ended up as, then no wonder Mueller left town early. Excuse me, but I don't think Randy C. compares with blowing out the president's skull in broad daylight, among 200 witnesses, and then covering up the crime through a phony autopsy that night and then reversing policy in Indochina and killing 4-6 million people as a result. Which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

Ok, so William and Bob admit they have never read Secret Agenda. Let me explain the paradigm. I took a back seat to no one in my antipathy for Nixon. And I still do. I thought he was one of the worst choices for president ever. His economic policies were a disaster. His foreign policy was despicable. I had nothing but disdain for his Southern Strategy, the appeal to racist undertones to turn the south from a Democratic stronghold into a GOP bastion. He also had a prime role in covering up the Mylai Massacre, and the persecution of Daniel Ellsberg. We now know, that even though he understood the Vietnam War was lost, he continued it for four years to try and get a Korea style settlement. He then invaded Cambodia and Laos. The former move started the fall of Cambodia , which began the rise of Pol Pot and led to the death of about 1-2 million people. He and Kissinger masterminded the fall of Allende in Chile which led that country into military dictatorship and decades of brutality and murder. No president was ever more overrated as a foreign policy maven than Nixon was. And Kissinger was just as bad. Any person would say that, in objective terms, Richard Nixon was worse than Trump. And that is why I could not stand the guy and cheered on when the was going to be impeached but resigned instead. I thought that Bradlee, Kate Graham, Woodward and Bernstein and Sam Ervin and John Dean were heroes. Nixon had gotten what was coming to him. There was justice in the world after all. In other words, I felt like William N and Bob N feel about what is happening to Trump. Many, many years later, in the nineties, when I was editing Probe Magazine, I picked up Jim Hougan's book Secret Agenda. The first chapter is entitled "Of Hunt and McCord." As I read it, my eyebrows began to arch. As I continued, they arched up higher. I then began to squint. By the time I was done and had read about Woodward's deal with the CIA (from their own documents), by that time I was grinding my teeth. Like almost everyone else--except maybe Fletcher Prouty--I realized I had been duped. Played for a sucker by a very clever plot that the MSM had concealed from view. The CIA had infiltrated Nixon's White House and brought him down from the inside. McCord was not what he appeared to be: a Bible thumping technician. He was a deep cover operator inside CREEP. who owed his allegiance to Helms and the CIA. The real winner in all this was Dick Helms. And in a roundabout way, I had cheered him on. None of this made Nixon any more appealing. To this day I cannot stand the guy. But if people like us, who oppose the Shadow Government in the Kennedy case, pick and choose the victims we favor, then how does that help in the long run? What have we done to make things better in a real and lasting way? The forces we oppose will still be there, and still be doing the evil things they have since 1963. Back then, when i wrote about this for Probe, when Stone's Nixon came out, I said that, if we have to ally ourselves with someone as despicable as Richard Nixon in order to take a stand against a corrupted system, so be it. That is the price one has to pay for the greater good. So I held my nose in that number and registered my protest. That issue got a remarkable reaction, since so few people knew the real story behind Watergate. To this day, I think that was the best issue we ever published. I don't like Trump. I never have liked Trump. I did not vote for him and I would never vote for him, even if he was the only guy running. But I will be damed if I will let my partisan biases make me a stooge twice.

More on the Steele DOssier and its validity: Mr. Steele also acknowledged that his final December memo, the only one that dealt with Mr. Gubarev, contained information he never vetted. “The contents of the December memorandum did not represent (and did not purport to represent) verified facts, but were raw intelligence which had identified a range of allegations that warranted investigation given their potential national security implications,” he wrote. He added, “Such intelligence was not actively sought; it was merely received.” The unverified “raw intelligence” included Mr. Cohen reported trip to Prague. BuzzFeed posted the complete dossier on Jan. 10 as Mr. Trump was about to assume the presidency. Mr. Gubarev is suing the online news site for libel in federal court in Florida and wants to know who supplied the document to BuzzFeed. Mr. Steele’s libel defense is not truth. He argues that he warned Fusion and reporters against making his memos public and never authorized their disclosure. Mr. Steele’s handiwork got only a qualified endorsement from the ex-head of MI6, the British intelligence service where Mr. Steele once worked before founding his private investigating firm. BTW, we all know about Cohen in Prague plotting with the Russians right?

LOL, yeah and I wished I had. BTW, I do not read film reviews anymore for the simple fact that there are no reviewers worth reading. As I noted in my review of Tarantino's joke of a movie about Tate/LaBianca, the whole institution of American film criticism collapsed a long time ago. Even Coppola admitted this in a candid moment. He said the big film companies had bought off the newspapers through ads and other kinds of pressures. Kubrick even got a guy to change his review so it would be a better blurb for Full Metal Jacket. It said the film was the best war movie ever made. (I am sure Joe McBride understands this kind of pressure since it happened to him.) That blurb was nuts. And Kubrick had to know it since he himself made a much better war movie decades earlier with Paths of Glory. Once all this unethical influence set in, the real critics began to get marginalized. And they slowly died out. Its hard to believe, but at one time in this country we had Andrew Sarris, Dwight Macdonald, Vernon Young, Stanley Kauffmann, Pauline Kael, and John Simon all reviewing at the same time! I read most of them and I then bought some of their books because I could actually learn something from them about art and history and aesthetics and acting. What you have now is a corrupt practice with a bunch of hacks/flacks. The only use for their writings is as bird cage liner. And in my opinion, this has had an impact on the quality of product on the screen.

BN Although you may think Trump is being picked on by a cabal of neo-liberal thugs that are staging a "coup" the fact is he's reaping the fruits of what his own behavior has sown. WN: David Korn at Mother Jones published the only 2016 pre-election story in the entire U.S. media about the Steele Dossier, on October 31st. Can you guys be serious about the above? As they say, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But you cannot create your own facts in order to do so. The accusations of Trump being a stooge of the Russians precede October 31st by a period of months. HIllary Clinton began it during the debates. And the whole Guccifer thing began in July of 2016 https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-suspects-russia-hacked-dnc-us-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump Is it only a coincidence that the sting on George P began around that time also? As a person who studies history, i try to look for origins and patterns. What is important to recall about those two events is this: the Steele Dossier was in the making at the time, but in the background. In other words, it was a triple header to push the Russia angle in the summer of 2016. If you want to ignore this, then fine, that is your choice. But in my opinion, it gravely weakens your argument that somehow Trump brought this on himself. Six months before he took office? 😲 The rigorous avoidance of these facts, and the obeisance to the MSM spin again recalls what the MSM did on Watergate. How can it not? I mean didn't you guys read Secret Agenda? That is not a rhetorical question, and I would like an honest answer.